What is the real problem with MACs?
Harimau
Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Yet another marine building thread.</div>What is the real problem you have with MACs?
Is it that you miss holding 'E' to build?
Or is it the annoying escort-an-NPC mission?
The first case can be fixed by putting it back in, in one form or another. But I really don't feel it's necessary.
Although many would argue that it's essential, many others (like myself) would argue that it's detrimental - that no one really *wants* to hold E.
For the inevitable 'support role' argument, I argue that the commander has begun taking *the* support role in NS2; he was always the primary support role in NS1 (for example, dropping ammo and health, equivalent to the support classes in other FPS games), but now he is even moreso. Regardless, giving marines the ability to build without a MAC would simply make the MAC obsolete - suggesting that they could build at different rates (marines slower for example) would just give UWE <b>yet another</b> thing to balance, when really it wasn't necessary in the first place.
Allowing the marine to assist in the building (to speed it up) could be a decent compromise, but of course it still doesn't help the second case...
The second case I'll acknowledge is a problem - <b>everyone</b> hates escorting NPCs - it's <b>merely tolerated</b> in a single-player game, but unacceptable in a multiplayer game. However, it can be fixed several ways: Phasing in MACs to an active marine, MACPacks (pick up and drop); those are just the two more obvious (and simplest to understand) methods.
So, is it that you miss holding down E, or do you dislike being the guard detail of a rather stupid lump of metal?
Is it that you miss holding 'E' to build?
Or is it the annoying escort-an-NPC mission?
The first case can be fixed by putting it back in, in one form or another. But I really don't feel it's necessary.
Although many would argue that it's essential, many others (like myself) would argue that it's detrimental - that no one really *wants* to hold E.
For the inevitable 'support role' argument, I argue that the commander has begun taking *the* support role in NS2; he was always the primary support role in NS1 (for example, dropping ammo and health, equivalent to the support classes in other FPS games), but now he is even moreso. Regardless, giving marines the ability to build without a MAC would simply make the MAC obsolete - suggesting that they could build at different rates (marines slower for example) would just give UWE <b>yet another</b> thing to balance, when really it wasn't necessary in the first place.
Allowing the marine to assist in the building (to speed it up) could be a decent compromise, but of course it still doesn't help the second case...
The second case I'll acknowledge is a problem - <b>everyone</b> hates escorting NPCs - it's <b>merely tolerated</b> in a single-player game, but unacceptable in a multiplayer game. However, it can be fixed several ways: Phasing in MACs to an active marine, MACPacks (pick up and drop); those are just the two more obvious (and simplest to understand) methods.
So, is it that you miss holding down E, or do you dislike being the guard detail of a rather stupid lump of metal?
Comments
Is it that you miss holding 'E' to build?
Or is it the annoying escort-an-NPC mission?
The first case can be fixed by putting it back in, in one form or another. But I really don't feel it's necessary.
Although many would argue that it's essential, many others (like myself) would argue that it's detrimental - that no one really *wants* to hold E.
For the inevitable 'support role' argument, I argue that the commander has begun taking *the* support role in NS2; he was always the primary support role in NS1 (for example, dropping ammo and health, equivalent to the support classes in other FPS games), but now he is even moreso. Regardless, giving marines the ability to build without a MAC would simply make the MAC obsolete - suggesting that they could build at different rates (marines slower for example) would just give UWE <b>yet another</b> thing to balance, when really it wasn't necessary in the first place.
Allowing the marine to assist in the building (to speed it up) could be a decent compromise, but of course it still doesn't help the second case...
The second case I'll acknowledge is a problem - <b>everyone</b> hates escorting NPCs - it's <b>merely tolerated</b> in a single-player game, but unacceptable in a multiplayer game. However, it can be fixed several ways: Phasing in MACs to an active marine, MACPacks (pick up and drop); those are just the two more obvious (and simplest to understand) methods.
So, is it that you miss holding down E, or do you dislike being the guard detail of a rather stupid lump of metal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya should probably read one of the 8 threads about this to see why people "miss holding down e" mainly the topics on tension, alternatives to shooting, and variety in strategies. Once again I will stress, if you are against marine building, you are more then welcome to never, ever build a single structure and let all the MAC's do it for you, and if you as well as some others can't think of a single strategy or reason why to use MAC's to build even if marines can as well, should never even consider being a commander, or try and perhaps think long and hard how you could work both of them to your advantage. Really it just seems like a stretch negative comment people against it try to make to add a point to their side but it's completely without merit, since in no way whatsoever does it make MAC's obsolete.
Well, what about it?
I sincerely doubt that holding E was the <b>only</b> source of tension in NS, or even the <b>greatest</b> source of tension.
I have high hopes that UWE will continue to give us a tense, adrenaline-fueled, thinking-man's action game with NS2. I <b>believe</b> that they're still going to give us many of the moments of tension we remembered, as well as brand new moments of tension.
By the way, I should clarify: What I really want to get an idea of, is which of the two cases (marine building is missing, or escorting is annoying) people consider to be the real problem.
<!--quoteo(post=1791583:date=Aug 4 2010, 06:02 PM:name=TheGivingTree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheGivingTree @ Aug 4 2010, 06:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791583"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is the lack of marine building.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So for you, the problem is not case two, but case one.
Well, what about it?
I sincerely doubt that holding E was the <b>only</b> source of tension in NS, or even the <b>greatest</b> source of tension.
I have high hopes that UWE will continue to give us a tense, adrenaline-fueled, thinking-man's action game with NS2. I <b>believe</b> that they're still going to give us many of the moments of tension we remembered, as well as brand new moments of tension.
By the way, I should clarify: What I really want to get an idea of, is which of the two cases (marine building is missing, or escorting is annoying) people consider to be the real problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True but no one is saying that. No one has said it is the greatest or only source of tension, just another source of it. That is one of the things that set NS a part and made it such a great game, the diversity and wide varieties of ways to feel that tension.. almost like your really on that ship, with your heart racing and pounding. Now taking away any element that provided this without adding in something to replace it just seems like a negative step in my opinion and of course this is only one of many reasons why.
And as I said, I'm happy with the compromise that marines can assist in building a building that a MAC is currently building. Those players can still feel that tension, still be supporting, but they'll be less helpless and more alert.
I wish this were the case. I'm not saying I'm against marine building, but if Marine building is a faster or more efficient way of building, then why would you NOT do it? It basically forces anybody within proximity of a nearby structure to go and start building it. I'm speaking from the point of view of somebody who has played NS for years and is looking for an evolution. I've build my fair share of solo RT's and PGs and I love playing gorge. But if the MACs are there why not let them build and give us another job?
Tension aside, the last thing I want is to feel like I'm forced to build.
Tension aside, the last thing I want is to feel like I'm forced to build.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS1 didn't have the option for MAC's to build, so if you don't want to the com will have a MAC build it, or another marine will come and do it who doesn't mind building. You can even state at the beginning of the game that you will refuse to build anything, so how would this change the game for you in anyway? Your still not building and MAC's or marines are doing it, won't affect you in the least.
It's very easy: It's not about "pressing e". that arguement is invalid becuase you have to press a mouse button every time to shoot, shall we remove shooting?
It's not the annoying escort an NPC mission. Tactical gameplay can be fun as well.
It's the fact that it's not NS. NS was the first and only game to do the FPS/RTS hybrid right: FPS players where a part of the RTS element, and the RTS element couldn't work without the FPS element. Maybe it was done because of limitations or whatever, the point is, NS1 emerged and it was fun.
Every RT you build now, will be done by atleast 2 man escort of a MAC, camping the room untill the RT tower and a few sentries are up (considering the difficulty building RT's, defences are justified now). Every RT in the past was done by marines running as fast as they could to the RT spots and defending them untill the commander dropped an RT. There was interaction there.
Now as a commander ill select a MAC, drop an RT, have the bot move on it's own and build another bot to keep in base or to send out to another RT. The only interaction with marines will be "Medpack" 'Medpack".
Don't get me wrong, NS1 had it's downsides too. In the initial rush 1-2 marines *always* stayed in base to build the buildings the commander dropped. The MAC's are extremely suited for this role, and would free up 1-2 marines for the advance which is an immense asset at the start of the game. Then the commander could set the mac to build the armory and immediantly follow the players to drop an RT as soon as they reach the resource points. THAT'S improvement.
Having MAC's be more important then players is a downgrade. Giving them weapons is even worse because then you won't even need the marine escorts anymore.
Wait, should I be starting a new thread for this?
But seriously, theres nothing wrong with MACS, UWE came up with a really cool systen and now they have to monkey with it because their loud fanboy contingent finds it to be an unacceptable improvement over the original game. I really wish UWE would learn to ignore the peanut gallery and just go with their original vision.
on the contrary, if your autistic teammates are building useless crap instead of fighting, it will affect you because your team will not be at full strength. the teams will end up being unbalanced because there will be 8 offensive players on the animal team (assuming their infantry can't build), and only 4 on the human team because the other 4 will be building portapotties while your base gets overrun.
Because I believe that holding 'e' in NS1 made tension, but it was a terrible cop out way of doing it (and lets face it that wasn't the design reason behind including it in the first place), if you're creating a new game you can experiment with new and better ways.
If we give the ability for marines to build, then they will need to be effective because the game will be balanced to cope with the fact they can.
Honestly I hope all this talk isn't going to effect how we should be going about this... which is leaving it as it is, playing testing the game (alpha/beta) and then if something seen to be lacking from the experience (not is something different from NS1) <i>then</i> consider changing the building mechanic.
Wait, should I be starting a new thread for this?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brilliant Idea !
Quick, do it before someone else gets the laurels for that ;-)
These sort of ideas mean MACs still have their role, but we dont lose other major aspects of gameplay such as the ability to sneak past aliens and establish a base near a hive, or those desperate relocations after an unexpected all out attack on marines base.
Thankyou for your narrow condescending views towards people you disagree with.
<!--quoteo(post=1792316:date=Aug 6 2010, 08:09 PM:name=zex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zex @ Aug 6 2010, 08:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->building useless crap instead of fighting...building portapotties while your base gets overrun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think players will only build useless structures and ignore their base defense. That's some deep consideration.
That's what I immediately thought, surely this could have been posted inside the few MAC/Building threads on the first page?
But, I'd much rather build things than escort something which often blocks your way. And as a Commander, I'd much rather send a Marine somewhere to build rather than a vulnerable MAC, frustrating games as a commander will be the norm unless you have some marines escort that MAC, as it's defenseless and fragile.
I didn't ignore your 'argument', I just couldn't find any substance to rebut.
By your reckoning zex, marines should have lost every game of NS1.
Zex, you claimed in your post that marines being able to build would mean it was essentially 8 v 4 and the marine team would lose. That was your entire arguement.
Since marines could build in NS1 and they didnt always lose, you failed on a scale so epic, they measure planets by it.
i know you deeeply want it to be, but it isn't.
i know you deeeply want it to be, but it isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, now youre actually telling people what they think. You've descended to a level of trolling hitherto unseen on these forums.
Ive never personally said I wanted NS2 to be the same as NS1. Those words, or anything meaning the same thing, has never been typed by my hand.
The commanders have to devise strategies, they dont have time to micro some floating trashcans / slugs around, that's my sole concern.
Maybe I am biased (I don't like micro management at all, yet I loved Homeworld 2), but I see the primary role of teamleaders as keeping track of the team and supporting them directly, not through building stuff everywhere on the map.
My expertise lies in FPS nowadays, but back in my early days I played many an RTS and the one most effective strategy is to cut of the enemy from their support, in NS it is their RTs.
Until every map is a long, two sided cylinder (with only one boring frontline) there is to much crap going on for commanders to actually do their job properly as a single unchecked enemy is able to run rampage on the reinforcement.
Aliens are supposed to be independent operatives, but flocking together to defend the slugs diminishes their chances of victory as they lose map control quickly.
Hell I think these are good improvements (maybe not low power attack) regardless of perceived gameplay issues xD
Except there isn't really anything about NS2's design that significantly conflicts with infantry being able to build.
It doesn't force infantry to build either, they can still leave it up to the bots if they just want to fight the whole time.
Yes, I've mentioned this at least twice in my posts, and given (possible) solutions - possible solutions that will continue to allow for the existence of MACs as the <b>only</b> unit capable of building in the game. (Marines may be capable of <b>assisting</b>, however.)
<!--quoteo(post=1791980:date=Aug 5 2010, 05:55 PM:name=QuadLMGkill)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (QuadLMGkill @ Aug 5 2010, 05:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791980"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everything you asked for has been answered in the behemoth threads already created over this subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What did who ask for?
<!--quoteo(post=1792329:date=Aug 6 2010, 06:40 PM:name=echs)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (echs @ Aug 6 2010, 06:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792329"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's what I immediately thought, surely this could have been posted inside the few MAC/Building threads on the first page?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because once again, what I want to get a feel for, is which of those two issues people consider to be THE issue. It's a <i>poll</i> of sorts. If it's the first issue (marines should be able to build), then there's really no help for it - you simply have to give the players what they want, in some form or another. If it's the second issue (I hate escort missions), then there's a number of solutions you could address the problem with that don't necessarily involve giving the marines the ability to build (and thereby likely making the MAC obsolete).
<!--quoteo(post=1792351:date=Aug 6 2010, 07:30 PM:name=RobB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RobB @ Aug 6 2010, 07:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792351"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The commanders have to devise strategies, they dont have time to micro some floating trashcans / slugs around, that's my sole concern.
Maybe I am biased (I don't like micro management at all, yet I loved Homeworld 2), but I see the primary role of teamleaders as keeping track of the team and supporting them directly, not through building stuff everywhere on the map.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't buy this argument. Either way, the commander <b>still</b> has to build buildings. Now he's just got automated machines to do it for him, instead of precious infantry. It takes him, what, an extra click? Doesn't really count as micro. Less maybe, because he doesn't have to harass new marines with repeated waypoints, the AI will listen immediately.
<!--quoteo(post=1792358:date=Aug 6 2010, 08:03 PM:name=Snazz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Snazz @ Aug 6 2010, 08:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1792358"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except there isn't really anything about NS2's design that significantly conflicts with infantry being able to build.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is, actually. At least two things:
1. MACs (and their assets) already exist. The AI pathfinding already exists and/or is being worked on. Regardless, they are already an integral part of the game.
2. Many (some? most?) people hate holding E to build. They find it boring and tiresome. This is a commercial game - their first commercial game (this is a critical point), and it should attempt to be fun for as many people as possible.
I see this different from you. Yes, he still has to drop them, but now he not only has to pester marines to follow his strategy (which he is ultimately responsible for imo, not the field marines), now he has to keep track of the little scumballs called builders as well - on top of that, they're a prime target for the enemy team.
Plus, as the drifter is effectively lost when it starts to build, they should come free but with a limit on numbers.
If there'd be a swarm mechanic of some sorts I wouldnt have such a problem with then, but as it is now you control them like SCVs or Peons and that is one of the things that pisses me off about them - I'd prefer them to move like the Imps from Dungeon Keeper or the builders from Knights & Merchants and Settlers where you simply give an order and the AI sends the units.
And if they're finished they actually look out for themselfs (as in retreating when an enemy is near).
But as it is, the thought of having to surrender any and all construction duties (even the most dangerous frontline operations) to those inflexible things is disturbing.
Just imagine an overwhelming rush on a construction site that can not be met with enough firepower to keep them out.
What happens? The MACs go down and the marines have to wait for replacements to arrive, that can be easily intercepted by skulks. a lone one even.
Reversed, it's even worse. A destroyed building not only means the res lost for placing it, but the slug is as well. along with the efforts and logistics invested in guiding and guarding it until it drops down.
And that will happen a lot since aliens have to spread out to establish a frontline, but there will allways be gaps forced by map design to prevent indefinite stalemates.
I have to admit that the current state of the game prevents me from experiencing a real game properly, but those are my thoughts from the first moment of noticing the new building mechanic until now.
<b>I fear that NS is evolving from an FPS with old school RTS elements to a modern RTS with FPS elements.</b>
And those I hate. RTSes should be about strategy and how to react to the oponent, not who does more commands per second.